The CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Tue 22 Aug 2017, 00:51

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1480 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug 2017, 23:14 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 6905
Ahzoh wrote:
Map-related, but I don't know how I can go about dividing it into nations. The nations are not close enough to warrant the straight line borders that most modern nations have and there are not enough natural borders to divide my lands realistically, as it's impossible for me to draw the thousands or tens of thousands of rivers and that a more realistic map would have.


My advice: words that the old Italian BINGO nonnas used to tell me when we used to make pasta 'gravy' for the church's Community Brunches:

:ita:
Lascia bullire, lascia bullire
Let it stew/ Let it marinate

:con: worlding is not a 200 yard brain-dump dash; it's an imaginative serendipitous marathon.

Whether you come up with the countries first and then fill in the accidentes geográficos (topographic features, landmarks), or verse-viça, it may take a little more time than NOW +(12 seconds ~ 6 minutes).
It may even take more time than, brace yourself, even a WHOLE HOUR!
Patience, Bub. Patience.


Like elemtilas rightly pointed out, 4-5 biggish rivers may be all you would need for starters.

Do you know of anyone who made a conworld map with +10,000 rivers?
I don't think I do.
[D;]
I'd [<3] to see it, though.
:mrgreen: [;)]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 02:47 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48
Posts: 2598
Lambuzhao wrote:
:con: worlding is not a 200 yard brain-dump dash; it's an imaginative serendipitous marathon.


A serendipethon!

Quote:
Whether you come up with the countries first and then fill in the accidentes geográficos (topographic features, landmarks), or verse-viça, it may take a little more time than NOW +(12 seconds ~ 6 minutes).
It may even take more time than, brace yourself, even a WHOLE HOUR!
Patience, Bub. Patience.


Right. Earth wasn't mapped in a day, you know. I've really only just the last couple months got a good idea what shape the lands of Gea take. I've had "general idea" maps for decades, but nothing settled. Now I've got the first dozen maps drawn of what I consider the definitive shape of The World. I've also got some sketches of Gea's twin.


Quote:
Like elemtilas rightly pointed out, 4-5 biggish rivers may be all you would need for starters.

Do you know of anyone who made a conworld map with +10,000 rivers?
I don't think I do.
[D;]
I'd [<3] to see it, though.
:mrgreen: [;)]


I'd hate to draw it! Anyway, most of those rivers would be of the lesser sort, you know. Streams & dreams, cricks, rills, runnels, wadis, brooks & bourns, flumentillos, creeks and the like. Too small for a large regional map. Some of them might show up on a town or grafdom map, though.

_________________
Image




If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 06:53 
fire
fire
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Posts: 5515
Location: SouthEast Michigan
Ahzoh wrote:
Map-related, but I don't know how I can go about dividing it into nations.

(see the "executive summary" at the bottom if this post is too long.)

IRL there are pairs (or trios or other small ensembles?) of countries that haven't decided which parts of the desert between them belong to which country.
A "nation" is a group of people who share several commonalities (or communities or things-in-common):
first is descent (otherwise the group is called something else instead of a nation)
second is usually language
third is frequently religion
fourth is, often, territory
fifth often is custom and/or law, if that's even separate from religion
sixth is somewhat-less-frequently defense
seventh is sometimes government
and there may be others I've left out; also maybe the order should have been different.

Of course "states" are also communities of several shared things;
territory, defense, law, and government are the necessary communities to make a populace a "state".

"National states" or "nation-states" were an invention of the Napoleonic era and the post-Napoleonic reaction to it.
If your peoples haven't gotten to some similar watershed bit of history, they probably neither need, nor want, nor have, national states.

Before Napoleon, states were held together by communities of one or both of two things:
monarchy
and/or
tradition.

Multi-national empires, or as the Soviet Union and South Africa among other modern states have put it "states with more than one nationality", were usually held together mostly by a common monarch.
They might indeed have a common religion too; or maybe not.
They almost never had a common descent.
They usually did not have a common law but usually did have a common way to negotiate differences in law.
They frequently did not have a common native language, but often they had a very common L2 that was a kind of "lingua franca" for the whole empire.

It also sometimes happened that what we'd (and they'd!) think of as a single nationality, was split into several states; e.g. the "Balkanization" of medieval Italy and Germany.

The reason our minds think "national state" whenever we think of sovereign states, is that the unifying bonds of sharing so many things in common, feel so strong to us.
They're not at all the natural kind of state to have, to go by historical example.
And they're also not the natural fate of nationality.




tl;dr? Executive summary:
What I'm saying is:
1. There's no need to assign every hectare of territory to be the property of one state or another.
2. You can have nationalities without national states.
3. You can have states without national states.

_________________
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 16:03 
korean
korean
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Posts: 5816
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu
Well I want to have my world map organized like this:
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images ... _500ad.jpg
But some of them have jagged borders that are probably rivers.

_________________
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 16:32 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48
Posts: 2598
Ahzoh wrote:
Well I want to have my world map organized like this:
http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images ... _500ad.jpg
But some of them have jagged borders that are probably rivers.


Actually, very many of those borders are along rivers. The Danube being a prime counterexample. Most of those lines aren't even borders in the modern sense of the word: they're just rough estimations of geographical extent. This doesn't mean that those people / countries didn't have well understood borders, just that modern scholars don't know where those borders were. Some of those jiggly lines are across deserts and mountains. There may or may not be rivers involved.

I guess if you want a map to look like that, you'd need some kind of cartographic software. I know there are a few for fantasy / rpg type mapping.

And please! No gripes that your map will never look as good as that one --- that appears to be taken from a satellite image of an actual planet. [;)]

D'oh!

Edit: ...very many of those borders are nòt along rivers...

_________________
Image




If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera


Last edited by elemtilas on Sat 05 Aug 2017, 17:58, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 16:59 
korean
korean
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Posts: 5816
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu
Aye, most of the area around a nation are march lands.
If I wanted a map like that I'd ask a comrade who's good at the sort of thing. I just do topographic layers like you see in some Wikipedia maps.

_________________
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 20:14 
fire
fire
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Posts: 5515
Location: SouthEast Michigan
Ahzoh wrote:
Aye, most of the area around a nation are march lands.
If I wanted a map like that I'd ask a comrade who's good at the sort of thing. I just do topographic layers like you see in some Wikipedia maps.

Do you mean "marsh land"?

_________________
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug 2017, 21:33 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48
Posts: 2598
eldin raigmore wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
Aye, most of the area around a nation are march lands.
If I wanted a map like that I'd ask a comrade who's good at the sort of thing. I just do topographic layers like you see in some Wikipedia maps.

Do you mean "marsh land"?


Marchlands are border regions or territories. They are often semi-independent of the bigger countries around them. Margrave and marquis are the notional continuations in English of overlords of marchlands. Merica continues the idea as the Marches between Germanic and Romano-Celtic territories in Britain.

_________________
Image




If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug 2017, 00:27 
fire
fire
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Posts: 5515
Location: SouthEast Michigan
elemtilas wrote:
Marchlands are border regions or territories. They are often semi-independent of the bigger countries around them. Margrave and marquis are the notional continuations in English of overlords of marchlands. Merica continues the idea as the Marches between Germanic and Romano-Celtic territories in Britain.

Kinda thought that, but couldn't find it by googling "march lands". (Handicaps of participating in CBB via phone.)
BTW isn't it "marquess" in English? "Marquis" is some other language, n'est-ce pas?

_________________
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug 2017, 19:11 
MVP
MVP

Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37
Posts: 1170
eldin raigmore wrote:
elemtilas wrote:
Marchlands are border regions or territories. They are often semi-independent of the bigger countries around them. Margrave and marquis are the notional continuations in English of overlords of marchlands. Merica continues the idea as the Marches between Germanic and Romano-Celtic territories in Britain.

Kinda thought that, but couldn't find it by googling "march lands". (Handicaps of participating in CBB via phone.)
BTW isn't it "marquess" in English? "Marquis" is some other language, n'est-ce pas?


No, "marquis" is English (and French, of course). It has two meanings. One, with a silent final 's', is the English word for a French marquis, and for the equivalent rank in most other romance languages - a Spanish marqués or a Portuguese marquês, for instance, will often be called a marquis in English - in the same way that a Markgraf or Markgraaf or the like will usually be called a Margrave (a title which has no domestic use). The other, with a sounded 's' (i.e. pronounced as 'marquess') is the traditional word for someone who has a marquess-level rank in the Scottish nobility.

The other English translation is "Marcher Lord"; however, this was a position, and has never become a fixed title of nobility. However, if you read about English history, "the Marcher Lords" do play a role.

The original distinction of a marcher lord, margrave or the like, was that they had less independence. An earl was a hereditary rank representing semi-autonomous feudal control over a people; a margrave indicated an individual directly appointed by, and responsible to, a higher authority. An Imperial Markgraf, for instance, was directly appointed by and directly responsible to the Emperor, rather than being an independent local potentate in their own right. [of course, over time these positions, like most, have tended to become hereditary and hence less distinguished from normal titles of nobility.]

But in principle the distinction is between a normal noble, who is the leader of the people in a particular area, and a march lord, who is sent by the king (/emperor, etc) to take military control over a dangerous border area.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 06 Aug 2017, 23:31 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48
Posts: 2598
Salmoneus wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
elemtilas wrote:
Marchlands are border regions or territories. They are often semi-independent of the bigger countries around them. Margrave and marquis are the notional continuations in English of overlords of marchlands. Merica continues the idea as the Marches between Germanic and Romano-Celtic territories in Britain.

Kinda thought that, but couldn't find it by googling "march lands". (Handicaps of participating in CBB via phone.)
BTW isn't it "marquess" in English? "Marquis" is some other language, n'est-ce pas?


No, "marquis" is English (and French, of course). It has two meanings. One, with a silent final 's', is the English word for a French marquis, and for the equivalent rank in most other romance languages - a Spanish marqués or a Portuguese marquês, for instance, will often be called a marquis in English - in the same way that a Markgraf or Markgraaf or the like will usually be called a Margrave (a title which has no domestic use). The other, with a sounded 's' (i.e. pronounced as 'marquess') is the traditional word for someone who has a marquess-level rank in the Scottish nobility.


"Marquess" seems to be the preferred English form. They are otherwise apparently synonymous: a rank below that of duke and above earl. Any difference is probably one of etymology. Yes, there are English and Scottish marquesses.

Quote:
The other English translation is "Marcher Lord"; however, this was a position, and has never become a fixed title of nobility. However, if you read about English history, "the Marcher Lords" do play a role.


Right. Back in the day, a marquess was a nobleman in charge of defending the kingdom's frontiers. I.e., the marchlands of the realm.

Quote:
The original distinction of a marcher lord, margrave or the like, was that they had less independence. An earl was a hereditary rank representing semi-autonomous feudal control over a people; a margrave indicated an individual directly appointed by, and responsible to, a higher authority. An Imperial Markgraf, for instance, was directly appointed by and directly responsible to the Emperor, rather than being an independent local potentate in their own right. [of course, over time these positions, like most, have tended to become hereditary and hence less distinguished from normal titles of nobility.]


Right. As regards marquesses of a particular kingdom. Not all marches (and their lords) pertain to a particular kingdom. There does come a point when central authority ends and everything beyond is all Barbaria. It's these I was referring to as semi-independent. Think of the client kingdoms around the edge of the Roman Empire for an example. Or perhaps the Eastern Bloc back when the Soviet Union was a thing.

_________________
Image




If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 07 Aug 2017, 15:22 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 6905
Yesterday I was spellbound watching David Attenborough documentaries with my son about the sea floor and sea life and geothermal vents… I could go on and on and on. :mrgreen: [<3] [:D]

Anyway, it got me thinking. There is so much 'real estate' untapped down there.
Does it actually make less sense colonizing the sea than it does to colonize, say, outer space, the moon, Mars? I'm probably befuddling a number of possible 'colonization' scenarios:
1) the sea surface
2) the undersea open ocean
3) the undersea mountains (breath-taking)
4) the sea floor (the frigging abyss!)

Is the bottom of the ocean that much more dangerous than beyond the atmosphere?

IMHO in the future, maybe in the next century, both options will be seriously explored for the increasing human population.

{btw, I am busily scouring the 'Net for articles on the subject. Any links will be appreciated}

Any thoughts? Opinions?
:wat:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 07 Aug 2017, 16:09 
fire
fire
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Posts: 5515
Location: SouthEast Michigan
Lambuzhao wrote:
.... Does it actually make less sense colonizing the sea than it does to colonize, say, outer space, the moon, Mars? ....

There's lots of science-fiction, and lots of scientific speculation between SF enthusiasts, about that.
I don't think they divide the scenarios as finely as you do; it's mostly "sea-surface" vs "sea-floor", or so it seems to me, as near as I can tell.
I think that the "space!" trope dominates the SFnal alt-"land"scape just because we tend to think (or feel); the more remote, the more fantastic the escape. (Or something like that, maybe.)
Anyway there are plenty of environments considered in SF, many of which are impractical, or at least impractical for unmodified humans.
Some of them include: deep space itself; the surface and just below the surface of a star; most of the non-Earth planets of our own Solar system; anything interstellar; gas-giant planets; earth-size satellites of gas-giants; etc.
Not to mention time-travel and alternate universes.
There used to be "galaxy-busters"; a type of story that included galactic empires and/or intergalactic travel. They're not all that popular anymore. SFnal trends in the lively arts tend to lag behind trends in the literature, though.

Recently there's been an SFnal turn toward modifying the colonists to fit the environment, rather than terraforming the environment to fit the colonists.

That wouldn't be necessary for colonizing the sea's surface.
In fact IRL colonization of the sea's surface began at least centuries, if not millenia, ago. It's not really any more fantastic than colonizing the Arctic or the Himalayas or the Andes. Or maybe the various deserts.
(But note that some degree of "modifying the colonists" has IRL taken place for those latter environments; though not by design. From the way the Oceanic peoples differ from the native Taiwanese we can see that some of the RL colonization of the sea's surface has also led to modifying the colonists.)

IRL there have been medium-time missions to the oceans' depths that have involved dwelling there for more than a few days; or, at least, so I understand. I don't think anyone has yet taken up permanent residence there; certainly there haven't been any babies born there.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, colonizing the abyssal plain, or even the continental shelves, is less of a challenge than colonizing the Moon or Mars or Venus. The problem of living a full life there, including bearing children and raising a family, is no greater; and the problem of getting there in the first place, is much easier.

So, you asked for opinions and comments. Here are some. Are any of them helpful? Or at least interesting?

_________________
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 07 Aug 2017, 19:56 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 6905
Quote:
So, you asked for opinions and comments. Here are some. Are any of them helpful? Or at least interesting?

Definitely so! Thanks.

Quote:
From the way the Oceanic peoples differ from the native Taiwanese we can see that some of the RL colonization of the sea's surface has also led to modifying the colonists.


Quite a point. And from the added ease that CRISPr technology will give genetic manipulation in 100-300 yrs,
minor to pretty substantial modifications could certainly slide out of the realm of utter impossibility.


Quote:
That wouldn't be necessary for colonizing the sea's surface.
In fact IRL colonization of the sea's surface began at least centuries, if not millenia, ago. It's not really any more fantastic than colonizing the Arctic or the Himalayas or the Andes. Or maybe the various deserts.

Excellent point! It was also brought up in some of the articles I recently read.

Quote:
IRL there have been medium-time missions to the oceans' depths that have involved dwelling there for more than a few days; or, at least, so I understand. I don't think anyone has yet taken up permanent residence there; certainly there haven't been any babies born there.

There have been a small handful of longer-time missions on 'sea-stations'. Oceanographer Sylvia Earle clocked 7,000 hrs underwater (that's 291 days, but not continuous).
https://www.ted.com/speakers/sylvia_earle

Nonetheless, despite these experiments, it seems folks like Jacques Cousteau, and even Sylvia Earle, and other prominent oceanologists spoke out against the idea, in favor of conserving the environment we have before sullying~raping the marine environment.
http://www.businessinsider.com/colonizi ... ans-2016-8

Furthermore, on other fora (NoStupidQuestions, Aeon.co, etc), folks have argued that there is still acres and acres of relatively barren landscape (e.g. one person from Arizona lamented the potential for development, but lack thereof in his home state, another poster mentioned the whole 'ghost city' phenom in China that could only occur if we still had enormous parcels of land still left underdeveloped).

But the folks at this forum really seem to argue the idea down
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... ns.728631/
predominantly due to the economic infeasibility of anything more than platforms/submarine stations that would cater to petrochemical and other mining industries.

One thing many in these articles press home is that these aqua-stations need to be "self-sufficient". Regarding water desalination, I can definitely understand the case for self-sufficiency: 'water, water all around, but not a drop to drink' etc.
Yet, regarding foodstuffs, I don't exactly get the need. New York city (maybe I'm thinking too big a comparison here) does not grow it's own crops within its city limits; I doubt any major city in the world could claim to be so green.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/dini ... lture.html
Why would/should an aqua-station (one populated with potentially millions of people) be any different?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 08 Aug 2017, 01:20 
MVP
MVP

Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37
Posts: 1170
Well, the question is tricky, because no kind of SF colonisation really makes sense, so it's hard to compare. But we can break it down. What makes a colony hard?

Inherent Problems:
1. Pressure
2. Deadly radiation
3. Heat
4. Gravity
5. Environmental assaults

Operational Problems:
6. Exploration costs
7. Installation costs
8. Repair and maintanance costs
9. Sustainability costs

Economic Problems:
10. Commercial Resources
11. Necessity of on-site population
12. Transport costs
13. Attractiveness


How do these stack up for a) shelf, b) deep sea floor, c) sea surface, d) Mars, e) Venus aerostats, f) Luna, g) a local space station, and h) an asteroid base?

On pressure, Venus and sea surface win - Earthlike or near-earthlike pressures. Mars and space come second - bases have to survive effectively negative 1 bar. This is a pain and requires heavy construction, but isn't a big problem. Seabed comes last, by a very long way. A continental shelf base off shore at aroun 100m has to be built to withstand 10 bar. An abyssal base might have to withstand 600 bar. That's a lot. That's crushing-metal pressure. It can be survived, but would require extremely heavy engineering. That costs money, and increases risk. [you have a leak at negative 1 bar, you ought to see about fixing it. You have a leak at 600 bar and you're all dead before you notice it].

Radiation: the three sea options, and Venus, win. The other options all require substantial shielding from radiation.

Heat: Venus and sea surface win. Seabed bases don't do too badly either. Mars loses out by being seriously cold (more expensive shielding and energy costs). Space bases start out incredibly cold, but rapidly become unliveably hot if you put machinery in them, because surrounded by vacuum they can't get rid of heat quickly. The best space option may be a solid-ground base that can sink heat into rock, or better yet ice.

Gravity: Earth and Venus win. Space loses: the low gravity will have all sorts of horrible consequences, so you need to provide artificial gravity. That's probably easiest on space stations, which can rotate: building the rotating frame on a fixed based gives more engineering costs. Mars is unclear: because we have no research on partial gravity (only 1g and 0g), we don't know how bad the gravity sickness will be. I'm guessing very bad, but you never know.

Environmental assaults: by this, I mean unpredictable local problems. Seabed is probably best for this: not a lot can get to you. Deep space has unexpectedly intense radiation bursts, and the threat of impacts. Mars has the constant problem of gale-force sandstorms that bury everything and erode exposed surfaces. Venus has the problem of keeping the aerostat steady in high winds. Sea surface likewise has gales and high waves. I think outside of the seabed Venus is next best, followed by sea surface if you keep out of bad parts of the sea, followed by deep space, followed by Mars.

Overall, inherently the best bases look to me to be the sea surface or Venerean aerostats. Deep sea bases do well in most respects, but do require building for really high pressures.

----

Turning to operation:

Exploration: cheapest for sea surface (we know it pretty well), followed by deep sea (we can observe it relatively easily if we want). Harder for extraterrestrial locations.

Installation: sea surface wins: ships can be built on land, and assembled in situ. Deep sea is probably next: again, most construction will be in land bases, followed by transporation in pieces. But much harder to assemble (maybe assemble at shallow depths before sinking it further?). Space stations are worst, because they have to be transported into space, which is expensive. Mars, Luna and an asteroid base will all require really expensive shipping of parts to begin with, but have the advantage that much construction can take place in situ relatively easily, and some raw materials will be present. Some of the inherent costs may be minimised by using natural features (i.e. caves) to provide shielding. Installation on Venus is hardest, in many way. Many aspects of the design are speculative, and hard to test out in advance (as there's no other application for them). Due to hostile atmosphere, in-situ assembly is tough - easier than in the abyss, but harder than space. Probably requires multi-stage assembly by robots.

Repairs: sea surface wins by far. External and internal repairs easy, and availability of ports for additional assistance. Space locations a bit tougher: going outside isn't easy. Venus harder still: high winds make external repairs easier. Although natural gravity may make some internal repairs easier. Deep sea hardest of all. From the other perspective: Venus and sea surface are simpler living contexts with probably fewer things to go wrong in the first place.

Sustainability: how self-sustaining are the bases? Sea surface has considerable energy resources; deep sea could have more at the right locations. Venus has immense energy resources to harness. Space locations have a bigger problem with energy, particularly if you go out to the asteroid belt. [An inner-system location, however, may have more than enough energy]. Mars is worst: weak sun, and atmosphere blocking it. Energy provides food. But Venus also has something of an advantage in natural food production due to masses of natural light - much more than on earth. Space locations can do a little natural farming through focusing with giant mirrors, but it's very expensive to build them. Sea surface has quite a bit of light, and maybe even some natural fish, though I suspect the fish would run out quickly if we started seasteading. Deep sea is worst: maybe energy, but no natural light. The other big ones are air and water. Sea surface is great for those. Deep sea, no air, and hard to harness the water safely (pressure!). Space station's pretty terrible too. Luna or asteroid base may mine ice, and create oxygen from it. Venus could crack it out of the atmosphere, but it would cost some energy. Mars is worst, although may be improved depending how much ice we find.

In terms of operating costs, sea surface and energy-rich Venus are probably best, except that Venus has some high costs up-front. Deep sea is probably worst: everything is so much harder.

------------

On economics:

Resources: seabed has some minerals, some oil, etc. Sea surface has? Nothing, really (that can't be gotten near the shore). Space locations have zero-G. Asteroids have a lot of potential resources. Luna has ice, at least. Venus has energy. Mars doesn't do well here - maybe some ice? Space station does worst of all: literally nothing but zero-G. Well, all the non-Earth options have the advantage of not being on Earth, if you're worrying about calamities.

Need for population: sea bed has a big problem here. Yes, there's stuff there, but since it's so close to the sea surface is there any real need to have people on site on the sea bed? I suspect that if people ever had to work at the sea bed, they'd still live and spend most of their time at surface and only go down the lift when they needed to. Then again, sea surface isn't great either, since it's accessible from land. Space locations have an advantage, the more distant the better: they're far away, so harder to operate from Earth.

Transport costs: sea surface cheapest by miles. Sea bed slightly behind. Space locations will be more expensive, although how much is a big question: theoretically, costs could come down massively. Venus is worst here, because it has escape-to-orbit at both end of the trip.

Attractiveness: sea surface probably wins in how little people hate the idea of living there. Venus (bright sunlight, plants) probably comes next. Then Mars and space: inspiring vistas of perpetual night (space), the Earthrise (Luna) or the great red sands, but only visible through computers or on rare trips outside as you spend most time under shelter. Deep sea is worst: confined quarters, no windows, and nothing to see out the windows if there were any. At most, perhaps the occasional submerine trip to the muddy deep sea vents, but really when you've seen one you've seen them all.

--------------

Overall: sea surface colonisation is by far the easiest in almost every way... but it has the big problem that it's pointless. There's nothing there that we don't have on land, and if it did we could travel there quickly to get it. Seabed colonisation is also probably pointless, and has the disadvantage of being terrible in almost every way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 08 Aug 2017, 01:42 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48
Posts: 2598
Salmoneus wrote:
Overall: sea surface colonisation is by far the easiest in almost every way... but it has the big problem that it's pointless. There's nothing there that we don't have on land, and if it did we could travel there quickly to get it. Seabed colonisation is also probably pointless, and has the disadvantage of being terrible in almost every way.


Very comprehensive! I think you hit about all the nails anyone would need hitting.

There are I think some positives for sea surface colonisation (and also near-to-shore under water colonisation). One, of course, is expansion of an already existing port city. E.g., a place like Hong Kong (especially were it still British). Or maybe Singapore? Relatively little dry land left for development --> why not expand out onto the water a bit? Underwater locales might make for interesting hotel / resort / restaurant locations. Perhaps even living space. Ordinary dry land type buildings could rise up from that watery foundation.

With the advent and expansion of off shore wind farms, underwater living & maintenance facilities might become more feasible. Perhaps some kind of undersea shuttle could be developed with airlocks that communicate with the access ports for the windmills. If you're a tech, your pilot just jets you right on over to the windmill, attaches the craft to the foundation port and away you go up into the pylon to work!

Another potential positive of surface c/s undersea component is the off-shore banking and gambling / extra-national resort industry.

Such things exist already (kind of, and writ rather small).

_________________
Image




If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 08 Aug 2017, 17:35 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 6905
Salmoneus wrote:

Overall: sea surface colonisation is by far the easiest in almost every way... but it has the big problem that it's pointless. There's nothing there that we don't have on land, and if it did we could travel there quickly to get it. Seabed colonisation is also probably pointless, and has the disadvantage of being terrible in almost every way.

[+1]
Thank you for the in-depth analysis of each of the sea-options, as well as comparing/contrasting it with Mars/Venus/and Space\Moon.

The most sober critiques of sea-colonization pointed pretty much to what you have concluded, Sal: until there is not an acre of land (or less) left on dry land somewhere, to cram one more multi-level edifice for homes and businesses, the costs will outweigh the benefits of building marine mega-structures at any level of the sea. That includes previously uninhabitable terrestrial areas like deserts, frigid Holarctic, tall mountain ranges like the Alps, Rockies, Andes, Himalayas.

Elemtilas raised an interesting point: port-cities or islands may indulge in some amphibious architecture in order to increase real estate, and real estate values. :?:

Very interesting discussion.
Thank You! [:D]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 08 Aug 2017, 21:31 
MVP
MVP

Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37
Posts: 1170
Lambuzhao wrote:
The most sober critiques of sea-colonization pointed pretty much to what you have concluded, Sal: until there is not an acre of land (or less) left on dry land somewhere, to cram one more multi-level edifice for homes and businesses, the costs will outweigh the benefits of building marine mega-structures at any level of the sea. That includes previously uninhabitable terrestrial areas like deserts, frigid Holarctic, tall mountain ranges like the Alps, Rockies, Andes, Himalayas.

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. I think there are places on land that are less hospitable than the sea. Mountain ranges, for one - the altitude is OK, but extremely uneven land can impose really serious costs. Parts of the tundra, and of course the ice cap, aren't that hospitable either - permafrost is very ungood to build on. I'm not sure about the deserts, either - where the nearest water sources are far away, it could conceivably be cheaper to desalinate seawater on a boat than to pump water into the sahara.

But yes, as a general thing, I don't expect serious ocean colonisation.

Quote:
Elemtilas raised an interesting point: port-cities or islands may indulge in some amphibious architecture in order to increase real estate, and real estate values. :?:


Yes, I think both floating and submarine colonisation may be feasible in very shallow water next to a city. The costs are probably lower than a lot of land colonisation, and there can be a high reward if you can extend a high-value urban area in this way. Conceivably, if the marine extensions are themselves high value, and hence extended further, this process could be extensive. We could end up with the real, prestigious city out at sea (build your own venice of lakes and canals and fountains and giant aquariums), and the shore being just for the working classes.

However, even the largest city is ultimately quite small, so urban extensions won't comprise a huge area, ever.

There's also probably an opportunity for rich seasteaders, either running their own casinos or just having "pleasure yachts" the size of the seawise giant. The sea can offer a degree of privacy and independence. However, I wouldn't see this as likely to involve any mass migration colonisation, just a few rich guys and their servants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug 2017, 06:04 
cuneiform
cuneiform
User avatar

Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Posts: 188
Location: Galag, berôn lake
Does anyone know of any good sites related to tectonic plates and wind patterns?

_________________
My conlangs are,

O Sumrol (Part of the Os-Baste family)
Šeǒ Blǔgreniěn (Sister-lang of O Sumrol)
Ũsè Mãngteròj (Sister-lang of O Sumrol)
Ferrekin (Descendant of O Sumrol)
Noba (Unrelated to O Sumrol)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug 2017, 17:18 
mongolian
mongolian
User avatar

Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32
Posts: 3744
Geoff's Climate Cookbook is the standard site, I think.

_________________
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1480 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.